Home | About | Donate

Confirmation Hearings Exposed Barrett as a Hardcore Rightwing Activist

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/21/confirmation-hearings-exposed-barrett-hardcore-rightwing-activist

Of course Coney Barrett “believes” that Marbury v. Madison is a super-precedent, because Marbury v. Madison constitutes the first layer of butter on her bread, and she knows perfectly well what side her bread is buttered on – the side of corporate-financed right-wing judicial activism. Marbury v. Madison is the basis of all subsequent Supreme Court judicial activism. Absent Justice Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court could not perform its corporatist mission of nullifying anti-corporate, pro-human congressional acts.

Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. It was the foundational case, moreover, of U.S. Supreme Court judicial activism. The Supreme Court does not have the power to overturn acts of Congress. Acts of Congress can only be overturned by Congress.

The ultimate irony here is that Justice Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison was a profoundly anti-originalist decision!


Barrett will enable the SCOTUS to take the US back more than a half century beyond the New Deal launch…back to before the fist US environmental regulation (outlawing hydraulic mining) was enacted in 1884.

So as an originalist/textualist, I will expect her to overturn the idea that corporations have constitutional rights since corporations are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. :expressionless:


How intriguing that she believes that the Constitution needs to be read as its original intentions. Hmm, you mean when women could not vote, and black people could be slaves? Hmm, of course George Washington wanted us to remain beware of “entangling alliances, " and that wars were not a good idea for the moment. And what fun we had remembering what Ben Franklin said, “…it’s a re[pubic of we can keep it.”
But what I would like to know is—why does she not believe that women have the right to control their own bodies?
I would like to know, as she has 3 daughter, 19. and 2 that are both 16—an age capable of bearing children. I would like to know what Amy Coney Barrett would do if any of the 3 were raped and became pregnant? Would she look at their age and their future lives and say, no matter a fetus is more important.” I wonder-------how many parents could do that to their daughters? And if Coney Barrett could do that to her daughters------- that would be like being raped twice. Once by the rapist, and then once again by the system----their very own mother. : (


True – and she looks like a religious robot –

A woman who is subservient to her husband and living in a 24/7 religious community every
day where she is mentored, supervised and observed by males constantly – with her husband
also serving as her “spiritual adviser.” In other words she is spiritually “inferior” as the Catholic
Church continues to hold women – and in need of male spiritual help.

What we know of men is that they are the weaker sex from birth – more subject to death until
the age of 2 years compared to females.

Their sexual delusions are on display constantly – anyone yet figure out Tobin at CNN?
Or Trump – who in every regard to his criminal life seems to want to confess, confess and
confess – and then lie, lie, lie again about it all. And the ZOOM and Internet seem to have
unbelievable attraction for them in putting their genetalia on display. Remember Weiner?

Money doesn’t seem to help them much in the relationship department – only seems to lead
them to become more demanding - more women and more power over women they don’t
even know – assaulting them.

Do we have any males here who can help explain this to us –

What is wrong with the male mind – other than we know it is ruled by the penis?

What’s the cure?

As Schumer said tonight – she’d take us back 100 years –


This is Trump’s attack on women, very specifically –


Schumer says they’re moving quickly because afraid of info getting out on her –

HI Greenwich:
I looked her up re: her family and her husband. Oh my—he is a lawyer, the article said he represented people accused of white coallar crime…does this mean like the Sacklers? Oh my, I was wondering if her husband would be advising her----I guess that answer is a BIG YES!

1 Like

So what is the prescribed remedy, when one Party violates the law, specifically in order to “appoint” a nominee to the High Court?

Isn’t the bare fact that NO Dems attended a Committee Meeting that isn’t supposed to take action without a Quorum by Committee rules, enough to invalidate ANY vote taken by that Committee?

I mean, THAT is what the word “quorum” means: the absolute minimum of Members necessary to do business.

When that number (of Dems in this case, a valid point because TWO DEMS are required by Committee rules) is not in the room, BUSINESS CANNOT BE CONDUCTED.

So it looks as though we’ve got an ILLEGAL SCOTUS JUSTICE headed for the High Court.

How do we REMOVE such an illegal “appointment?”

Stardust –

Thank you –
Hadn’t gotten into the husband – except that she is subservient to him in the their
cult where all women are subservient to their husbands.
This is a real live cult she lives in 24/7 – they live with other couples – the women are all
supervised by all of the males – mentored, etc – and while encouraged to education and
outside careers it seems to be to “build the Kingdom of God” by taking over our Courts –

Her father and his father are both LEADERS of the cult –
Everyone here should read Wiki’s report on “People of Praise” –

Keep on telling it – thank you!


Yes, by falsely claiming patriarchy is a political system,you are burying history and furthering lies. So good of you to admit it!

Patriarchy is a thriving political system not only still in the US - but around the world –
with women reduced to force pregnancy and to slave labor – and same for their children.

The “religions” that people belong to are all MALE SUPREMACIST RELIGIONS … which
should actually be called 'WHITE MALE SUPREMACIST RELIGIONS" because the Vatican
most especially opened AFRICA to outside exploitation, plunger which is still going on –
and demonized AFRICANS as well to be exploited as SLAVE LABOR.

And the racism of those Papal Edicts still echo on everywhere –

Our government actually created an ELITE/PATRIARCHY – which you are trying to deny
for some reason only known to yourself – because no one could fail understanding that
women didn’t have the right to VOTE for hundreds of years here –

Many women around the world are forced into pregnancies because male supremacist
religions have influence and control over their governments –

Many women are still garbed in Medieval garments because of male supremacist religions
which are violent –

I’d also point out to you that women here still do not have an Equal Rights Amendment –

So, very clearly patriarchy is not only underpinned by male supremacist religions –


Hi Greenwich:
And LOL about her belief that that the original designers of the Constitution-----BUT they did not include women in any government position—and they COULD NOT VOTE until 100 years ago. So-----if she really believes that—she has to recuse herself from the position. Now of course other women have served and are serving on the court—but if Barrett really believes in what she says—that we must go by the original’s writers----then she really should recuse herself now! : )